Consisting of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), Items 1-5.1
DoD acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20,2
1960), as amended; DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the DoD on
1 September 2006. 
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
XXXXXX, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx )       ISCR Case No. 14-04959 
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: David F. Hayes, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  I deny Applicant’s clearance.1
On 16 January 2015, the Department of Defense (DoD) sent Applicant a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) raising security concerns under Guideline F, Financial
Considerations.  Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting a decision without2
hearing by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). The record in this case
closed 15 August 2015, when Applicant’s response to the FORM was due. Applicant
provided no additional documents. DOHA assigned the case to me 23 December 2015.
Unless otherwise indicated, all references to specific correspondence or payments are from the supplemental3
materials Applicant submitted with her Answer.
Applicant’s payment records (Answer) show that she was paying $424.13 every four weeks (Applicant was4
paid every two weeks) from 14 February 2014 through the first pay period in July 2014. There is a gap in her
records from 16 July 2014 to 1 August 2014, when her account may have had a zero balance. Beginning 1
August 2014, Applicant made alternating payments of $220.52 and $230.37 every two weeks through 21
January 2015.
The listed balance on the creditor’s settlement offer was more than the amount alleged in the SOR, but less5
than the amount Applicant enrolled in her DRP. The settlement was effectuated by the DRP.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR financial allegations. She is a 34-year-old security
guard employed by a U.S. defense contractor since March 2003. This is a periodic
reinvestigation of a clearance she was granted in the past.
On 5 February 2014, Applicant entered into a debt-negotiation agreement with a
debt relief program (DRP) whereby Applicant would make regular deposits into a
savings account and the organization would negotiate with Applicant’s creditors to
resolve her delinquent debts (Answer, Item 1). Applicant enrolled SOR debts 1.a-1.f and
1.l, totaling $18,538.80.  She also enrolled one debt not alleged in the SOR.3
On 20 February 2014, Applicant executed her clearance application (Item 2). She
reported SOR debts 1.b-1.f and 1.l, totaling $16,691. She acquired SOR debts 1.d and
1.l because she was helping family members financially. She incurred SOR debts 1.b-
1.c and 1.e-1.f because her financial assistance to family members left her unable to
meet her own obligations (Item 2). The debts fell delinquent between February and
November 2010, and in September 2011. Applicant reported that she had entered a
DRP, and was paying $448 per month toward settlement of her debts.4
On 26 March 2014, Applicant was interviewed by a Government investigator
(Item 3). After discussing and acknowledging the six debts she had listed on her
clearance application, the investigator confronted her with other unlisted debts, using
her 8 March 2014 credit report (Item 4) as the basis for the questions. Applicant
acknowledged the other six SOR debts (SOR 1.a and 1.g-1.k). She attributed her
delinquent debts to her bills piling up. She did not repeat her claims of providing
financial assistance to family members. She could not always say for sure whether she
had received delinquency notices from her creditors. Yet she knew she had delinquent
debts on 5 February 2014, when she entered the DRP.
The SOR alleges, Government exhibits (Items 2-5) substantiate, and Applicant
admits 12 delinquent debts totaling nearly $18,000. Applicant’s Answer documented
that SOR debt 1.b was settled for approximately 50% of the creditor’s listed balance on
13 June 2014.  The DRP settled SOR debt 1.e for approximately 40% of the creditor’s5
The DRP was to make six roughly equal payments from April through September 2014. Applicant’s payment6
records show that five of the six payments were made. The missing payment would have fallen in the payment
records gap from 16 July 2014 to 1 August 2014. However, Applicant’s 26 June 2015 credit report (Item 5)
shows that this account was paid in September 2014 for less than the full amount.
Enrolled in the DRP for $6,734.7
3
listed balance on 17 April 2014.  Applicant’s 26 June 2015 credit report (Item 5) shows6
SOR debt 1.f as a paid charge off, with a last payment in March 2015. Applicant made a
reduced payment of $73.44 to settle SOR debt 1.g. However, the payment receipt is
undated. Applicant claimed to have paid SOR debt 1.h in February 2014 (Item 3), but
provided no documentation. At the time of her 9 February 2015 Answer, she claimed to
be awaiting paperwork. This was because she did not pay this debt until 25 February
2015 (Item 5). Applicant documented that she paid SOR debts 1.I and 1.j on 18 July
2014 (Answer). She paid SOR debt 1.k on 19 July 2014. The DRP settled SOR debt 1.l
for approximately 45% of the creditor’s listed balance with a single payment on 25 April
2014. The DRP also made six monthly payments from July through December 2014 to
settle a non-SOR debt for approximately 40% of the creditor’s listed balance (Answer).
SOR debts 1.a, 1.c, and 1.d, totaling $5,816,  remain unresolved. A 30 January7
2015 account activity statement from the DRP showed that she had $1,427.62 in her
account through 21 January 2015. She was scheduled to make another $4,508.90 in
deposits through the end of October 2015. However, she provided no corroboration of
these claims. She appears to have incurred the education loans between January 2003
and April 2008, while she was in school earning her associate’s degree, which she
obtained in April 2008.
         Applicant has not documented any contact with her creditors since her last
monthly payment was made on the non-SOR debt in December 2014. Her 26 June
2015 credit report (Item 5) confirms that a last payment was made on SOR debt 1.f in
March 2015. She provided no budget or financial statement. Applicant has not
documented any financial or credit counseling. She provided no work or character
references, or evidence of community involvement.
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors for evaluating a person’s suitability
for access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and
mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented.
Each decision must also reflect a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Any one disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself,
conclusive. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a case
can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing access to
classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole,
the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline F (Financial Considerations).
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).8
¶19(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;9
¶20(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that10
it is unlikely to recur . . . 
¶20(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and11
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
4
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government
must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does,
the burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case.
Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden
of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any
reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.8
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant has an extensive history of
financial difficulties dating back to at least February 2010.  I find Applicant’s efforts to9
resolve her debts to be driven by her concerns over her security clearance, and not by
any motivation to deal with her debts responsibly. Based on the sequence of events, I
infer that sometime before 20 February 2014, Applicant’s company informed her that
her clearance was due for periodic reinvestigation. Knowing that she had eight debts
that remained unresolved for more than two years, she engaged the services of a DRP
to resolve those debts. However, she only reported six of those debts on her clearance
application. During her March 2014 subject interview, she learned of other delinquent
debts, including SOR debts 1.g-1.k. She resolved three of those debts in July 2014,
resolved one at an undetermined time, and paid the last in February 2015.
Applicant meets none of the mitigating conditions for financial considerations.
Her financial difficulties are both recent and multiple, and to the extent that her problems
seem to be related to her inability or unwillingness to live within her means, they are
likely to continue.  The root of her financial problems was the financial assistance she10
gave to family members. That is a choice she made, not a circumstance beyond her
control.  Moreover, she provided no background or context for the claimed financial11
assistance. Applicant has had no credit or financial counseling.  Applicant has resolved
¶20(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that12
the problem is being resolved or is under control;
¶20(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.13
5
nine of the 12 alleged debts, as well as at least one debt not alleged in the SOR.12
However, it is difficult to give her much credit for these efforts, clearly undertaken with
her periodic reinvestigation. Consequently, I do not consider these efforts to constitute a
good-faith effort to address her debts.  Moreover, Applicant has no demonstrated track13
record of living within her means. Furthermore, Applicant provided no information upon
which I could conduct a favorable “whole-person” analysis. Accordingly, I conclude
Guideline F against Applicant.
 Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-l: Against Applicant
Conclusion
Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Clearance denied.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge